BEIRUT, Lebanon — Secretary of State John Kerry was clearly exasperated, not least at his own government.

Over and over again, he complained to a small group of Syrian civilians that his diplomacy had not been backed by a serious threat of military force, according to an audio recording of the meeting obtained by The New York Times.

The 40-minute discussion, on the sidelines of last week’s United Nations General Assembly in New York, provides a glimpse of Mr. Kerry’s frustration with his inability to end the Syrian crisis. He veered between voicing sympathy for the Syrians’ frustration with United States policy and trying to justify it.

The conversation took place days after a brief cease-fire he had spearheaded crumbled, and as his Russian counterpart rejected outright his new proposal to stop the bombing of Aleppo. Those setbacks were followed by days of crippling Russian and Syrian airstrikes in Aleppo that the World Health Organization said Wednesday had killed 338 people, including 100 children.

At the meeting last week, Mr. Kerry was trying to explain that the United States has no legal justification for attacking Mr. Assad’s government, whereas Russia was invited in by the government.

--------Posting in two part because of text limit--------After listening the whole record, that's not frustration, but helpless/powerless attitude. But other than this, the record contain some more interesting parts. The what if scenarios does not matter, historry is not written like that, and even if some of the participant of this meeting are Syrian, they have no idea how wars actually fought.

They blame Russia for not "cooperating" (which for the dear speaker would mean to make Russia to give up what's for they are in Syria for the first place) with the rebels and US to make a deal which with all parties could be winners. Russia would not be there if it would not be for a post-war Syria (that is shaped for Russia's favor), and how could anyone think they would just change their mind? Those speakers are serious, or just said those sentences for the show?

Next, how devil a thing that (allegedly) RuAF and SaAF are targeting the "White helmet". If it's would not been clear for someone who's side are on the so called Civil Organisation stand on, well they are not as "independent" as it's always said. I would call Red Cross or UNICEF independent, but at the point (and I'm talking about any war, not just Syria) when you specifically focus your area of operation to an area controlled by a specific group, and you align your work with them (which also could mean not just help, but the distribution of food, equipment and also as being a money income for the given group), you have no rigth to call yourself "civil" or "independent". The participant on the mentioned records were way beyond the point which in they are focus on peace, and the avoid of deaths of innocents, but more like having a focus on get rid of Assad, cost no matter. That's where the problem lies with this kind of organisations.

Kerry mention how Russia does not respect the international law, but which part of this law authorise anyone of sending tons of money, weapons or any other form of support with the interest of "having a change/better life" in any region, while they know from the very beggining this will lead to 10/50/100/500.000+ death and even larger amount of refugies. Does international law allow any of this? It's not hypocracy to say no, because noone at all care about this, and such groups area armed by foreign countries all around the word, from Chad to Syria, but the thing is that if you do so, don't act like your hands are clear of 400.000 Syrian death.

Would a US intervention back in 2012 made any better situation for now? Well, only if I would know the answer. But the problem is lie among the rebels themself, and the less of their unity / different views on things. And the different views when mixed with any extremist/radical groups is a straight way for deaths. We already have an unfunctional Iraq and Afghanistan and Lybia and the list goes on, and I personally do not remember for any success story from the recent past, but maybe just because my memory is bad. The only difference I see from the tow outcome is who will sit on the presidental seat.

Kerry mention Russia intervented in Syria because of IS, but the timing of the Russian intervention was not realy about IS captured Tadmur, but the collapse of the Idlib-Jish-al-Shugul-N. Latakia-Al-Ghaab frontlines. that was the point when SAA's bone cracked, this iniciated the remove of forces from Tadmur that gave IS the possibility to advance. IS advance in the region stopped when met with harder resistance (and not empty dester terrain) by reaching Suweida and Rif-Dimashq areas. And soon after with Russian help the lost areas mostly have been captured back.

Kerry mention a possible scenario, which in every Syrian could vote, even refugees from other countries, and how Assad afread of this. Well even with international observes I did not seen any vote which with there were no manipulation. It's could not be taken seriously, even just the possibility of 12 million of people could vote while they are not even in their own country, and still avoid (even if just the allegation) of fake votes submitted. No matter what would be the result calling the other side cheater would be the first.

But wehat comes next is the thing that matter. This meeting was 10 days ago, and at the end Kerry said US will enforce their policy more, but so far we seen not much, other than the rumors of new weapons (including MANPADS) to the Rebels. If that's happen, it will ignite the events exactly what Kerry told to the dear lady who spoke the most, which in all side just throw even more and more on the table, until nothing remain.

Other than this it was interesting to listen what makes a terrorist wort to attack, and how evidence should look like. But I missed talkingpoints such as the result of Syrian Gov. amnesty and reconciliation program, why weren't there a clear split between the moderate rebels and the extremist ones (even if the US-Russian deal 2 weeks ago had this point), and why the status ofIS and Al-Nusrah was not even mentioned when they talked about the post-war state. In general it's very interesting to hear how this kind of meetings goes, I would love to just sit there and listen how they decide the fate of others. But hey I'm just an assadist, communist, devilkind with an opinion.

About Me

I have been involved in numerous computer science projects since the 1980s, as well as developing numerous web projects since 1996.
These blogs are a summation of all the information that I read and catalog pertaining to the subjects that interest me.